Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states a broad principle rather than a hard-edged presumption or a set of specific tests. A new home is “isolated” for that policy when it is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Isolation from services and facilities is not an additional requirement.

Whether a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, and whether a proposed dwelling is physically isolated from it, are matters of fact and planning judgment. A settlement may include a hamlet or cluster of dwellings and need not have its own services or lie within a formally defined settlement boundary. The court determines the objective meaning of planning policy in context, while its application is entrusted to the decision-maker and is reviewable on public law principles.

Braintree District Council challenged an inspector’s decision granting planning permission for two dwellings in Blackmore End, Essex. The inspector regarded Blackmore End as a recognisable village and concluded that nearby dwellings meant the development would not create new isolated homes in the countryside.

Lang J dismissed the council’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin). On appeal, the council argued that paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework required consideration of both physical isolation from other development and functional isolation from services and facilities. The central issue was whether the inspector had consequently misinterpreted and misapplied national planning policy.

1. Appeal dismissed. The inspector made no error of law in interpreting or applying paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Lang J was right to uphold his decision (Lindblom LJ, McCombe LJ agreeing).

2. The interpretation of planning policy is ultimately for the court. Policy must be given its objective meaning in context without being treated as having the force or linguistic precision of a statute. Its application on a correct understanding is for the decision-maker, with the freedom to exercise the planning judgment permitted or required by the policy. Judicial review of that application proceeds on Wednesbury principles.

3. Paragraph 55 is expressed in general and unprescriptive terms. It identifies broad principles for promoting sustainable development in rural areas. The word “avoid” expresses a general principle rather than a hard-edged presumption. The paragraph does not prescribe specific tests, criteria or questions governing every planning application.

4. In the phrase “new isolated homes in the countryside”, “isolated” means physically separate or remote from a settlement. The policy contrasts housing within a settlement with dwellings standing apart from one. It does not require a separate inquiry into functional isolation from services and facilities. Such a gloss would impose a restriction absent from the policy and could irrationally classify dwellings surrounded by other homes as isolated merely because their settlement lacked services.

5. Whether a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, and whether a proposed dwelling is isolated from it, are matters of fact and planning judgment. A settlement need not satisfy a minimum size or population, lie within a development boundary, or possess services of its own. It may include a hamlet or cluster of dwellings.

6. The inspector was entitled to regard Blackmore End as a settlement and to conclude that the proposed homes were not isolated. No special circumstances under paragraph 55 were therefore required. He also properly applied paragraph 14, considered the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and lawfully concluded that the proposal attracted the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The council’s appeal was dismissed: [2018] EWCA Civ 610. The inspector had correctly interpreted and applied national planning policy, and Lang J had rightly upheld his decision.
2. Administrative Court, Planning Court: Lang J dismissed the council’s section 288 challenge to the inspector’s decision: [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin).
3. Planning inspector: The inspector allowed the linked section 174 and section 78 appeals and granted planning permission for two dwellings.